Thermally Modified

Wood Performance
Test Report

Date: 06/01/2020

Products: Thermally modified Yellow

Poplar, Ash, and Red Maple

1
 Project Summary
Test Method
Faculty in the Department The test specimens were
of Sustainable Biomaterials evaluated in general
at Virginia Tech are accordance with ASTM D143
researching thermally Standard Test Methods for
modified (TM) lumber with Small Clear Specimens of
the collaboration of three Timber, ASTM D4442 Standard
U.S producers of thermally Test Methods for Direct
modified hardwoods. One Moisture Content
objective is to evaluate the Measurement of Wood and
mechanical properties of Wood-Based Materials, and
thermally modified wood. AWPA E10 Laboratory Method
This research is part of a for Evaluating the Decay
larger project funded by the Resistance of Wood-Based
U.S. Forest Service, Wood Materials Against Pure
Innovations Grant program. Basidiomycete Cultures:
The mechanical properties Soil/Block Test.
studied were; hardness,
bending, the equilibrium of
moisture content, and
volumetric shrinkage. The
product description, test
procedure, and test results
are reported herein.

Product Description
The products tested were provided by three producers of TM
hardwood products. The material had to be milled and conditioned at
23°C and 65% relative humidity until it reached an equilibrium to
proceed with the mechanical testing.

2
 Test Procedures

ASTM D143 Static Bending ASTM D4442 Equilibrium of

Testing was conducted on an MTS test Moisture Content (EMC)
machine using a 3,000-pound load cell After conditioning the specimens to a
operating at a speed of 0.05in. (2.5 uniform weight at 23°C and 65% they
mm)/min. The span length was 14 in. were oven dried at 103± 2°C. The
(360mm) and each sample was subjected moisture content, EMC, was determined
to a center point compressive load until for the original conditions, which is
failure occurred. approximately 12% for un-modified wood.

ASTM D143 Hardness AWPA E10 Decay Resistance

Testing was conducted on an MTS Test The decay test was conducted using
Machine using a 3,000-pound load cell Gloeophyllum trabeum (brown rot) and
operating at a speed of 0.25 in. (6 Trametes versicolor (white rot) with
mm)/min. There were two penetrations sterilized materials and equipment. Test
made on the tangential surface. bottles with soil and a feeder strip were
inoculated with fungi for three weeks.
ASTM D143 Radial and After the mycelium spread on the feeder
Tangential Shrinkage strip, the test blocks were added. After
The sample’s length was measured, and twelve weeks, the samples with the
testing was conducted in an oven and mycelium were removed from the test
was dried at 103± 2°C until an blocks and then oven-dried for one day.
approximate constant mass was The final step was storing the samples in
attained. Measurements of were made the conditioning room until the
of the oven-dry specimens. The equilibrium of moisture content was
shrinkage is expressed as the achieved to weigh the samples.
percentage of the volumetric changes
that it had through the oven-dried
process.

3
 Results
Figure 1. Modulus of Elasticity
Modulus of Elasticity (MPa)
18,000.00
Figure 1 shows the graph with
16,000.00 the Modulus of Elasticity
14,000.00 (MOE), where the MOE value
12,000.00 for poplar and red maple
10,000.00 increased 15% and 20%,
MPa

8,000.00
respectively, and the result
showed that both had a high
6,000.00
standard deviation. In the case
4,000.00
of ash, the MOE tends to
2,000.00 decrease by 8% compared to
- untreated wood from published
Poplar Untreated Ash Untreated Red Untreated values.
Poplar Ash Maple Maple

Figure 2. Hardness
Hardness (lb)
1400.00
Figure 2 presents the hardness
1200.00
values, where TM poplar and
1000.00 red maple hardness increased
POUNDS (LB)

800.00 by 13% and 4%, respectively,

600.00 where the case of ash the
hardness value decreased by
400.00
47%. Hardness performance is
200.00
essential for flooring
0.00 applications.
Poplar Untreated Ash Untreated Red Untreated
Poplar Ash Maple Maple

Figure 3. Modulus of Rupture

Modulus of Rupture (MPa)
120.00
Figure 3 shows the Modulus of
100.00 Rupture (MOR), where poplar
80.00 tends to increase by 7%, but for
MPA

60.00 red maple and ash, the values

40.00 decreased by 14% and 66%,
20.00 respectively.
0.00
Poplar Untreated Ash Untreated Red Untreated
Poplar Ash Maple Maple

4
 Figure 4. Equilibrium of Moisture Content

Equilibrium of Moisture Content (%)

14.00%
The Equilibrium of Moisture
12.00% Content (EMC) is shown in
% MC AT EQUILIBRIUM

10.00% Figure 4. The results show

that there was a significant
8.00%
decreased in the EMC at the
6.00% same temperature and
4.00% relative humidity when the
compared to untreated
2.00% wood.
0.00%
Poplar Untreated Ash Untreated Red Untreated
Poplar Ash Maple Maple

Figure 5. Shrinkage
The shrinkage values for the
Shrinkage (%) tangential surface tends to
9.00% decrease by 85%, 83%, and
Radial
AVG. SHRINKAGE %

8.00%
82%, respectively. The same
7.00%
Tangential goes for the shrinkage
6.00%
5.00% values on the radial surface,
4.00% decreasing the value by 76%,
3.00% 80% and 72%, respectively.
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
Poplar Untreated Ash Untreated Red Untreated
Poplar Ash Maple Maple

Figure 6. Durability
Decay Resistance
70 The weight loss observed
G. trabeum in Figure 6 shows the
60
T. Versicolor improvement that
50
thermally modified wood
WEIGHT LOSS %

40 species have compared to

30 untreated values. This is
20 due to the lower levels of
10 moisture content and
0
sugars left in lumber.
Poplar Untreated Ash Untreated Red Maple Untreated
-10
Poplar Ash Maple

5
 Additional Information
The data displayed on the tables and figures provide the values of untreated wood for the
three species studied, which was came from published literature rather than comparison
testing [Ross (2010), Larose (2014), Schirp et al., (2007), Sivrikaya et al., (2015)].

The average MOE measured for all three companies was higher than the average MOE of
untreated wood as measured by Hill (2007). This was not expected, since most literature
described a decrease in mechanical performance (Esteves et al., 2008). Also, most of the
work done by Esteves did not specify the technology used to thermally modify the wood,
only the schedule utilized, which may be crucial. For example, Candelier (2014) mentioned
that commercial technologies utilizing a vacuum in their systems did not see a considerable
reduction of the mechanical properties of wood after the modification, due to improved
drying of the wood in the chamber.

With different schedules and technologies used to produce TM wood, it makes sense to have
different values such as an incremental increase in MOE, MOR, and hardness performance,
depending on the species. The results from the dimensional stability, equilibrium of moisture
content, and durability against fungus showed significant improvement for the three-wood
species studied, and most of the test values obtained from each company were statistically
the same or if statistical differences existed, they were not practical differences in regards to
product use. For example, the practical difference between a final EMC of 4.4% compared to
5.7%

Overall, the results obtained from the physical tests, showed improved values of 5% to 1%,
for the radial section for yellow poplar with treated and untreated values, and for the
tangential section the red maple samples showed untreated and treated values from 8% to
1%. In the case of EMC, the values improved approximately from 12% to 5%. There were
differences in the values between the companies, as shown in the previous section, but each
showed larger reductions, relative to untreated values. While there were statistical
differences between the values of some of the companies, the overall improvements,
compared to untreated wood, were quite large, from 12% to 5%. This demonstrated that,
relative to untreated wood, the different commercial processes were a significant
improvement.

The average values of the three companies showed an improvement in the decay resistance
of TM wood, when compared to untreated wood. TM yellow poplar treated by Shi (2007),
showed improvements from untreated values of 69% of weight loss to 18%. Literature
indicated that thermal modification increased the performance against brown-rot more
than white-rot (Esteves, 2009; Sandberg et al., 2015), and the obtained results in this study
demonstrated it. Most importantly, the results showed that different commercial processes
and schedules resulted in the same decay resistance for all three species tested.

6
 Table 1. Mechanical and Physical Test Results
Bending Shrinkage
MOE MOR Hardness EMC Radial Tangential
Test/Specie
Mean Mean Std Mean Mean Std Mean Std Mean Std
Std Dev Std Dev
(MPa) (MPa) Dev (lbs.) (%) Dev (%) Dev (%) Dev
TM Yellow
12,640.07 (2,485.46) 74.92 (24.64) 613.45 (159.84) 5.22 (0.54) 1.12 (0.31) 1.17 (0.36)
Poplar
Untreated
10,900.00 -- 69.70 -- 540.00 -- -- -- 4.6 -- 8.2 --
Poplar

TM Ash 11,114.08 (3,124.72) 51.99 (21.81) 817.84 (199.73) 5.48 (0.83) 1.03 (0.60) 1.03 (0.53)

Untreated
12,000.00 -- 103.00 -- 1326.38 -- -- -- 4.9 -- 7.2 --
Ash
TM Red
13,787.89 (1,958.14) 80.13 (24.07) 991.69 (181.31) 5.40 (0.63) 1.15 (0.58) 1.40 (0.34)
Maple
Untreated
11,300.00 -- 92.00 -- 950.00 -- -- -- 4.0 -- 8.2 --
Maple

Table 2. Durability mass loss percentage of treated and untreated wood species.
G. trabeum T. versicolor Average
Test/Specie
Average Mass Loss (%) Mass Loss (%)
TM Yellow Poplar 2.08 1.77
Untreated Poplar 26.49* 61.85**
TM Ash 1.14 0.78
Untreated Ash 11.68* 45.3***
TM Red Maple 1.59 1.06
Untreated Maple 9.54* 40.0****

7
 References
American Wood Protection Association. *Larose, M. (2014). Determination of
(2012). AWPA E10-12 standard method of the properties of thermally modified red
testing wood preservatives by laboratory soil- oak, white ash, and yellow poplar (pp.
block cultures. AWPA Book of standards. 42-44). Wood Design & Building.

****Anagnost, S. E., & Smith, W. B. (1997). Ross, R. J. (2010). Wood handbook:

COMPARATIVE DECAY OF HEARTWOOD AND Wood as an engineering material. USDA
SAPWOOD 01; RED MAPLE. Forest Service, Forest Products
Laboratory, General Technical Report
ASTM D143-14 Standard Test Methods for FPL-GTR-190, 2010: 509 p. 1 v., 190
Small Clear Specimens of Timber, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014. ***Sivrikaya, H., Can, A., de Troya, T., &
Conde, M. (2015). Comparative
ASTM D4442-16 Standard Test Methods for biological resistance of differently
Direct Moisture Content Measurement of thermal modified wood species against
Wood and Wood-Based Materials, ASTM decay fungi, Reticulitermes grassei, and
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016. Hylotrupes bajulus. Maderas. Ciencia y
tecnología, 17(3), 559-570.
Donahue, P., Aro, M., French-Coda, S., & Chen,
W. (2011). Thermally-modified Eastern **Schirp, A., & Wolcott, M. P. (2007).
hardwoods as high-tech fenestration and Influence of fungal decay and moisture
exterior shuttering. USDA Wood Education absorption on mechanical properties of
and Resource Center Project, (09-DG), 090. extruded wood-plastic composites.
Wood and Fiber Science, 37(4), 643-652
Candelier, K., Dumarcay, S., Petrissans, A.,
Gerardin, P., & Pétrissans, M. (2014).
Advantage of vacuum versus nitrogen to
achieve inert atmosphere during softwood
thermal modification. Pro Ligno, 10(4), 10-17.

The test conducted in this report is part of a project funded by the U.S. Forest Service Wood
Innovations. The results obtained are tested values and were secured using the assigned
standard. This report is the exclusive property of U.S. Forest Service Wood Innovations, and
it is only related to the specimens specified.

Juan Gonzalez, B.S

Henry Quesada, PhD
Brian Bond, PhD
Virginia Tech. Department of Sustainable Biomaterials.
1650 Research Center Dr.
Blacksburg, VA, 24061